any thoughts on providers as a subset having build a sort of herd immunity?  if these providers have seen enough clients, they statistically have been exposed to the virus and possibly build some type of immunity

I haven't been as active as I once was,  or rather I am doing a lot more repeats than usual, I guess I have still been with maybe 25-30 different girls since COVID hit and I can only think of one who has had COVID out of all of them. Or at least I have only been with one who actually got sick. Since the overwhelming majority of people, especially young, healthy people are asymptomatic, I guess ALL of them might have been exposed at one time or another but never actually got sick.  I guess I will most likely never know. lol

 
Back to your point, I have to agree that any "high volume" hooker almost certainly would have been exposed by now. Lets take K-Girls for example who see more guys each week than I have seen since the start of COVID, you would think that any woman who has been "up close and personal" for an hour or more with literally hundreds of guys, the odds of her NOT having been exposed after all this time and so many opportunities has got to be off the charts.

The population isn't a closed community. The "fence" around the herd is totally porous and stragglers (mavericks, dogies, clients) going in and out vastly outnumber the herd itself. You have no idea who is immunized and who is infectious. And, from what we know at this time, immune status might only last a few months. I think the stats are against you.

END OF MESSAGE

great feedback. please educate us.

The providers are not the spreaders among the subset population. The clients are the spreaders to the providers. So it doesn't matter what portion of the providers have some immunity. If on that is not immune sees an infected client they are getting sick -- the herd immunity among providers does nothing for them.

 
In the case of clients, if one of the providers is sick she will still keep infecting the clients she see while contagious. Again, the portion of providers with some type of immunity really doesn't slow that transmission among the client population seeing the sick provider. Nor would it have any impact on the spread in the real world interactions by that infected client.

 
In other words, the herd immunity for providers does basically nothing for the value of R0. It does change the probability of a client seeing an infected provider today if most were already infected, recovered and have some immunity. But chances of getting infected is a different issue than transmission rates and an R0 value under 1 due to herd immunity.

thank you.  that was insightful.  

so even if a person has some level of immunity, they can easily spread the virus? is that the correct understanding?

LOL. No, not quite but that is another discussion that can be had.

Let's try this example. Let's say 80% of all providers have been exposed and developed their antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That would certainly be considered a level consistent with herd immunity. But what would than mean in terms of spreading the virus to clients, other providers (generally though clients I suspect) or the spread of infections in the general community?

 
The concept of herd immunity is about outbreaks that don't propagate widely and die out on their own. That is basically what happens with most flu and things like the common cold.

 
But clients are much more likely to get infected from someone other than a provider (work, their children, church, shopping, dining out...). So the likelihood a client infects provider is more about outside the hobby than the presence or absence of provider herd immunity. Likewise, given a client were to get infected, while some providers might be infected by that person the level of immunity in the provider sub population would have virtually no impact on how the infections from that client propagate to other mongers or the local population in general.

 
I suspect what you're tying to get at is that it might be relatively safe to see providers now. I think that has been true for the entire time. Everyone has always been at significantly more risk of coming in contact with someone infected at work or buying groceries and the like than seeing a provider. The different is that IF the provider is infectious you have a new 100% change of getting infected. But the probability of her being infected is much, much lower than that of at least one of the random strangers you cross paths with if you go shopping for food.

As a form of population control. Everyone on the planet is going to get it, it's a matter of whether it's going to take your ass out or not. It's simply the universe talking. This too shall pass just like it happened a hundred years ago.